Loading...
Planning Commission Minutes 01-05-2021MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, January 5th, 2021 - 6:15 p.m. Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center Commissioners Present: John Alstad, Andrew Tapper, and Alison Zimpfer Commissioners Absent: Paul Konsor Council Liaison Present: Lloyd Hilgart Staff Present: Angela Schumann, Steve Grittman (NAC), and Ron Hackenmueller 1. General Business A. Call to Order John Alstad called the Regular Meeting of the Monticello Planning Commission to order at 6:15 p.m. B. Appointment of Officers for 2021 ANDREW TAPPER MOVED TO TABLE ACTION ON THE APPOINTMENT OF OFFICERS FOR 2021 TO THE FEBRUARY 2021 REGULAR MEETING. ALISON ZIMPFER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 3-0. C. Consideration of approving minutes a. Regular Meeting Minutes — December 1st, 2020 ANDREW TAPPER MOVED TO APPROVE THE REGULAR MEETING MINUTES — DECEMBER 1ST, 2020. ALISON ZIMPFER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 3-0. b. Special Meeting Minutes — December 29th, 2020 ANDREW TAPPER MOVED TO APPROVE THE SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES — DECEMBER 29TH, 2020. ALISON ZIMPFER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 3-0. D. Citizen Comments None. E. Consideration of adding items to the agenda None. F. Consideration to approve agenda ANDREW TAPPER MOVED TO REVIEW ITEM 2D. (CAPSTONE HOMES) FIRST FOR THE PUBLIC HEARINGS. ALISON ZIMPFER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 3-0. 2. Public Hearings A. Public Hearing — Consideration for adoption of the 2021 Monticello Official Zoning Map Applicant: City of Monticello Angela Schumann noted that each year the Planning Commission is asked to Planning Commission Minutes — January 5th, 2021 Page 1 110 review the official Zoning Map for adoption. The zoning map is the record of all the rezoning actions that have been approved by the City over the past year. She provided a summary of those changes per the staff report. In addition to the Zoning Map, the Planning Commission considers adopting the corresponding Floodplain and Shoreland Overlay maps and are unchanged from last year. John Alstad opened the public hearing. Schumann pointed out the location of each rezoning change on the map. An error was noted with Exhibit A of the staff report and would be revised for City Council consideration. Andrew Tapper asked for the purpose of the Shoreland Overlay District and Floodplain maps. Schumann noted that the City of Monticello is responsible for regulations relating to the floodplain of the Mississippi River as well as Shoreland regulations for the River, its' tributaries, and other public waters. The limits for the Shoreland and Floodplain are mostly regulated by State Statute, other mapping, and the Monticello Zoning Ordinance. By adopting the overlay map, the Planning Commission would recognize both of those boundaries. Tapper asked if those maps are new for this year. Schumann declined that they are the same as 2020 and these maps are approved each year. Hearing no comments, the public hearing was closed. Alstad asked for clarification -on the process for updating a zoning map. Schumann explained that each of the rezoning actions were previously considered at public hearings and recommended actions were taken. The City Council has approved the noted rezoning actions identified in the report. Schumann noted that the City Attorney recommended that the City annually approve the Zoning Map. JOHN ALSTAD MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC-2021-001 RECOMMENDING THE ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 7XX FOR THE 2021 CITY OF MONTICELLO OFFICIAL ZONING MAP, INCLUDING SHORELAND/FLOODPLAIN COMPANION MAP, BASED ON THE FINDINGS IN SAID RESOLUTION. ALISON ZIMPFER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 3-0. B. Public Hearing — Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for a Commercial Office Use in the CCD (Central Community District), Walnut & Cedar Sub -District Applicant: Laestadian Lutheran Church (Phil Jurmu, Facilities Manager) Steve Grittman introduced the item for Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for a Commercial Office on the ground floor of the Central Community District (CCD), Walnut & Cedar Subdistrict. The purpose of this subdistrict was to encourage as Planning Commission Minutes — January 5th, 2021 Page 2 110 much retail and hospitality in the core portion of downtown. As a result, it was thought that some offices may interfere with retail interplay along the block. Commercial Offices are allowed on second floors of the district, but require a CUP on ground floor levels. Grittman described the proposed location of the facility at 212 West 3rd Street, a previous hardware store. He also reviewed the submitted items by the applicant including their narrative and a proposed rendering of the renovated building. Grittman noted that the available on -site parking was adequate for office uses. Further noted, an occasional meeting would occur at the facility and there may be some overflow parking that the street or public parking lots would need to accommodate. Grittman reassured that the CCD District was capable of handling extra parking. He also added that the applicants may be able to reach agreements with neighboring property owners for overflow parking as well. Staff recommended approval of the application. John Alstad confirmed that there was no Exhibit Z for this application. Grittman confirmed. Alstad opened the public hearing. Phil Jurmu, Laestadian Lutheran Church/the applicant, noted that their current office space in Loretto, Minnesota is no longer useful for the Church's office needs. He explained that this approval is the last step towards moving their office operations to Monticello. Jurmu provided the background of the organization and the proposed improvements that would be made to the building. He noted that 12 employees would be utilizing this office on any given day. He noted that on occasion workshops or volunteer committees (8-20 people) would occur, notably in the evenings or on weekends. Hearing no further comments, the public hearing was closed. ANDREW TAPPER MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC-2021-002, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR GROUND FLOOR OFFICE SPACE, BASED ON THE FINDINGS IDENTIFIED IN SAID RESOLUTION. ALISON ZIMPFER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 3-0. C. Public Hearing — Consideration of a Map Amendment (Rezoning) to Planned Unit Development, Development & Final Stage Planned Unit Development, and Preliminary and Final Plat for the Construction of a Machinery & Truck Repair & Sales Use Applicant: Nuss Truck & Equipment (Phil Watkins) Steve Grittman introduced the land use requests and provided the location site plan. He noted that the site is located along Chelsea Road West. The development area is two parcels and is zoned Highway Business District (B-3) and Industrial and Business Campus District (IBC). Grittman noted there is some confusion in Planning Commission Minutes — January 5th, 2021 Page 3 110 the record with what the existing zoning is, however approved, a Planned Unit Development (PUD) would be set up as the zoning district. Grittman explained that the applicants were seeking to construct a building in the center, east portion of the site. The building would consist of sales, floor area, office space, mezzanine storage, and a shop. The use of the site would be for truck and machinery sales, repair, and service. Grittman displayed the applicant's proposal for employee and visitor parking and display area. A mixed surface area (unpaved) was proposed for storage of other equipment on the west portion of the site. Grittman added that the applicants proposed three access points onto Chelsea Road West. The site would be surrounded by fencing and gates, but the westerly portion would be open for equipment drop off during off hours. Grittman explained that the request was a little bit of a non-traditional PUD and that PUD flexibility was intended to create a hybrid use for this site. The code does not address this particular use exactly, particular with the amount of storage and display that would accompany this proposal since it's not a traditional automobile dealership or passenger vehicle facility. The PUD standards were still applied when reviewing the application. Staff ensured that the application with conditions as noted in Exhibit Z would more closely reflect the intent of the base zoning and fulfilling the use of PUD zoning per the code. Grittman reviewed the comments in Exhibit Z. Andrew Tapper asked for clarification on the opposing road entrance issue noted in the conditions. Grittman noted the importance of aligning the driveways with adjacent properties. Grittman was concerned with exiting traffic from both the proposed site and adjacent property when making left turns at the same time. He noted that the driver is likely watching street traffic rather than the other driver at the other site causing conflicting traffic movements. Tapper asked if it was better that the entrances were directly inline. Grittman confirmed, but also added that if the access points are far enough part that the traffic, they would not conflict. Tapper asked if there was a proposed distance that the middle driveway be shifted to the left. Grittman explained that the City Engineer would be able to confirm. In discussion with the Engineering staff, it is believed that either aligning the middle access with Dahlheimer's Beverage or shifting it to the west would be viable. Lloyd Hilgart asked what the biggest concessions from the zoning code that the applicant was receiving with the PUD and how the applicant would offset those deviations. Grittman noted a large concession is the milling surface for the storage area. Grittman also noted that the departure from the landscaping standards is significant on this plan, but it is staff s understanding that modifications would be feasible for the applicant. Lastly, the building materials and/or coloring have been requirements of other buildings along Chelsea Road. Planning Commission Minutes — January 5th, 2021 Page 4 110 Hilgart asked about the building size and if there is a criterion for foundation size. Grittman stated there is a standard that applies to automobile sales and has been applied to recreational vehicle dealers. He noted that if that standard is applied, the site would be a little bit under that requirement, but their intent is to add mezzanine space and future expansion space. Angela Schumann clarified that the Zoning Ordinance table is specific to vehicle sales or rental. On an eight acre or more site, the requirement is nine percent coverage or a minimum building size of 40,000 square feet, whichever requires the larger building. Hilgart mentioned that he was accepting of the building size but would like to see the building fagade and landscaping more enhanced due to its location. John Alstad opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to speak first. Phil Watkins, Nuss Truck & Equipment/the applicant, noted no concerns with meeting the recommendations. Watkins noted that since the Concept Stage PUD meeting, the applicants revised their drawing to increase the size of the building. He added regarding the storage area, they envisioned possible extending the roof out to increase square footage even further. Watkins noted they might need to further discuss a redesign of that storage area as operations could be impacted. Watkins noted regarding the landscaping plan, their intent was to match their neighbor — Ryan Motors. He explained that they added significant landscaping by the millings area. He added that the millings area is designed as an unloading area for heavy equipment and for customers to have access to the facility after hours. Watkins noted that aligning the middle access across the street would probably work for them. He noted they were designed that way for efficiency of truck circulation interior to the site. They tried to limit turning throughout the site as best as possible. Watkins noted the black coded fencing would be acceptable and they could likely remove the proposed barbed wire, but in the past have had security issues without it. Watkins suggested that if they do need barbed wire, they would create a security plan with the City. Watkins noted that the largest things at play were the engineering comments. Andrew Tapper asked about discrepancies with the landscaping plans. Watkins noted a revised landscaping plan was created after discussions with staff. The plans would be squared up once they know what they can have. John Alstad asked for clarification on the location of the property. Watkins noted that there would be vacant lots on both sides of the development and Ryan Motors was two parcels to the east. Watkins added that the stormwater pond was installed for neighboring properties to the south and is fairly high in relation to the lot. He noted that the developer would need to raise their entire site between 2 and 8 feet to get water to flow to that pond. Watkins noted they will be above the freeway elevation. He added a problem they are encountering is that some of the water from other lots is flowing through their lot to get to the pipe that goes to that pond. He noted they will have to put some type of stormwater diversion in there and hook it up to the system. Planning Commission Minutes — January 5th, 2021 Page 5 1 10 Scott Dahlke, Civil Engineering Site Design/the applicant's engineer, explained some of the major items with the Engineering comments. Dahlke noted they have been working with City Staff to resolve engineering issues and the largest issue is with stormwater. He reiterated that this issue has to do with the drainage of not only the subject parcel, but all the adjacent properties and everything that feeds into the stormwater system, as well. The developers and staff are working together through alternatives to resolve this issue. Dahlke noted that stormwater is proposed to be handled off site in the existing City ponds. The development would pay their share for stormwater treatment that would be generated by the development site. Dahlke also noted a comment in the Engineering comment letter regarding a Drainage and Utility Easement that bisects the property. He noted there is an existing 20-foot easement that extends from I-94 coming through the middle of the site (just west of the proposed building location). It was put in place with the earlier plats of these properties. He noted there is no stormwater feature or pipe nor a ditch associated with the easement area. He felt that it was unnecessary as far as they could tell, but that they are accommodating it to relocate it to the far westerly boundary. When the property is platted, there would be a 12-foot Drainage and Utility Easement along all boundaries and additional easement would be placed on the west. A combination of those featured easements would allow for future drainage improvements needed if it came to be. Dahlke also noted that the developer and staff talked about the access locations. They are in the process of generating a modified plan showing the middle access aligned with Dahlheimer Beverage. They also discussed shifting the most easterly access 25 feet further to the east for as much separation between all access points that would still function for operations on the site. Dahlke also noted that sewer and water connections comments were fairly straightforward, and it was explained that all of those stubs are extended up to the property from Chelsea Road West. Storm sewer connection is also stubbed in at two locations on Chelsea Road West. He noted that those connections would be extended to the building, connecting to the storm sewer, and extending storm sewer on the site to handle all surface drainage. Dahlke expressed that no drainage would go toward I-94 or MnDOT right-of-way. All drainage would be collected and routed through the stormwater ponds. Dahlke also explained that currently there is a continuous trail on the south side of Chelsea Road West. There is no sidewalk on the north side of Chelsea Road West. Per the Engineering comment letter, staff recommended installation of the sidewalk. Dahlke indicated that one of the complications of this is the location of current fire hydrants being in the location of proposed sidewalks additions. He indicated that three fire hydrants are on their frontage and they proposed to match how Ryan Motors installed sidewalk. Engineering staff recommended that they asked the developer to adjust the location of the sidewalk in the boulevard to try to straighten it out and pull it closer to the curbline. Dahlke indicated they would be modifying to incorporate those changes. Planning Commission Minutes — January 5th, 2021 Page 6 110 Hilgart asked the applicant how much traffic they anticipated coming and going from the site in relationship to changing the access point locations. Watkins estimated daily that there would between 10 to 20 tractor/trucks, 10 to 15 tractors with trailers, 25 employees, and 30 to 35 customers. He noted that a lot of their parts sales is delivery. He mentioned that their access spacing would be similar to Mills Fleet Farm, which sees far more traffic. Watkins noted that the most ideal location of the access point from an operations standpoint would be between the end of the building addition and first row of customer truck parking. Hilgart asked for clarification that the milled area would have no fence. Watkins noted it might have a fence, but it would not have a gate. He noted a challenge with the far west area dropping steeply due to having to raise the site up quite a bit and to have enough room for landscaping. Hilgart asked for why the applicant needed fencing. Watkins noted problems in the past with theft. Hilgart asked for the height of the proposed fence. Watkins noted 7 feet high with 3 strands of barbed wire above. Watkins noted he believed they would be okay with a plastic coded fence. Hearing no further comments, the public hearing was closed. Decision 1 — Rezoning to PUD, Planned Unit Development JOHN ALSTAD MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION PC-2021-003 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A REZONING TO PUD, NUSS PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT, BASED ON FINDINGS IN SAID RESOLUTION. ANDREW TAPPER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 3-0. Decision 2 — Preliminary Plat JOHN ALSTAD MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION PC-2021-004 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A PLAT, CONSOLIDATING THE TWO SUBJECT PROPERTIES INTO A SINGLE DEVELOPMENT PARCEL, SUBJECT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF EXHIBIT Z. ANDREW TAPPER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 3-0. Decision 3 - Development Stage PUD Approval J01 N ALSTAD MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION PC-2021-005 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A DEVELOPMENT STAGE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR THE APPLICATION, SUBJECT TO THE REQUIREMENTS IDENTIFIED IN EXHIBIT Z OF THIS REPORT, AND BASED ON THE FINDINGS IN SAID RESOLUTION. ANDREW TAPPER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 3-0. EXHIBIT Z Rezoning to PUD, Preliminary and Final Plat, and Development and Final Stage PUD Nuss Trucking and Equipment Planning Commission Minutes — January 5th, 2021 Page 7 1 10 1. Addition of landscaped islands or similar spaces throughout the paved area, including at least one such island along the north boundary of the site. 2. Addition of evergreen trees screening the outdoor storage parking area on the west, and buffer plantings on the east, all as noted in this report and consistent with city code requirements. 3. Revised landscaping plan is submitted based on the engineered final site plan. 4. Addition of architectural enhancements to the principal building emphasizing additional/alternative materials treatments and principal entrance features. 5. Elimination of the westerly access point, and consolidation with the 2"d access point as noted in the City Engineer' report. 6. Elimination of the references to barbed wire, and reliance on alternative security measures on the property. 7. Addition of dark green or black vinyl coating on the chain link fencing, per ordinance requirements. 8. Specification of the exterior materials for the storage/trash area to be similar to those of the principal building. 9. Modification of the lighting plan to a maximum of 1.0 footcandles at the property line and 25 foot tall poles. 10. Submission of a signage plan consistent with the requirements of the City's sign ordinance. 11. The City Engineer provide comment and recommendation related to grading, drainage and utilities. 12. Compliance with the recommendations of the City Engineer's report dated December 17, 2020. 13. Compliance with the comments of MnDOT's plat review. 14. Comments and recommendations of other City Staff and Planning Commission. D. Consideration of a request for Ordinance Amendment relating to R-1 Zoning District standards Applicant: Capstone Homes Andrew Tapper reclused himself from this item. Steve Grittman explained the two requests for the Zoning Ordinance amendment. The intent was to alter some of the building architectural Planning Commission Minutes — January 5th, 2021 Page 8 1 10 standards that apply to single-family homes in both the R-1 and R-2 District. Grittman briefly reviewed the current code for roof pitches and recommendations by the applicant. Grittman noted that the applicants supplied several home designs that have porch or gabled covered roofs that do not meet the roof pitch standard. However, Grittman noted that the main roof structures do meet the current code. Staff felt this request was reasonable but recommended the limiting the amount of coverage for these types of roof variations. Through discussions with the applicants, they had noted concerns with staff s recommendation. The second request for amendment to the Zoning Ordinance related to building materials (brick or stone fagade requirements) for single family homes in the R-1 or R-2 Districts. The applicants requested dropping that language as there were several styles of their homes that do not have brick or stone and that it was a popular request by home buyers. Staff want to protect the original interest in maintaining high levels of architecture and building quality in the single-family home districts. Grittman provided the applicants request for zoning ordinance amendment with several staff recommendations that aim to maintain the high -quality building materials and architecture of the single-family districts. Grittman noted that when the original language was adopted, the intent of the language was to accompany the City's intent to encourage or require step-up architecture and higher end housing that was not being seen built at the time. There was a concern that some of the housing that was being proposed was at the least amount of architectural detail or building materials. John Alstad asked what the main thrust of the proposed change. Grittman deferred to the applicants but noted that in their view the market has moved away in some designs in fagade materials and a wider variety of architecture was taking hold. Alstad also asked about the extraordinary pitch clause. Grittman noted that it was existing language in the code. It was noted that the Planning Commission would not be able to recommend a motion due to a lack of a quorum for this item. Alstad opened the public hearing. Heather Lorch, Capstone Homes/the applicant, wanted the opportunity to get some initial feedback and direction so that when they come back to the Planning Commission next month, there might be some tweaked language, or some further conversations could be had. Lorch prepared a short presentation that speaks to some of the recommendations they have as a developer that they would like the Boards to consider in addition to what staff proposed. Alstad asked if the homes that the applicant discussed building last year (approximately 350 homes) were all built in Minnesota. Lorch confirmed. Alstad asked if the extraordinary roof pitch refers to a less steep roof pitch. Lorch confirmed that they are proposing a 6/ 12 overall and a 7/ 12 for the Planning Commission Minutes — January 5th, 2021 Page 9 1 10 enhanced areas. Alstad asked if that change would affect the ability to protect the house. Lorch declined. Alison Zimpfer did not see issues with the applicants request and noted the importance of regularly updating the ordinance to stay current and move our City to the forefront. Lloyd Hilgart did not object to changing the pitches on accessory roofs but encouraged having percentages identified for having such roofs. Hilgart noted complexity to the proposed staff recommendation for brick and stone and was not in favor of removing the brick and stone requirement. Lorch responded that by removing the brick or stone does not mean diminishing the quality of the home. She noted that there is a new generation of buyers that are not interested in stone and they would like to be able to offer something that would interest them. Zimpfer reiterated the need to keep our zoning ordinance updated and modern to attract new generations and more home development in the City. Alstad agreed. There were no further comments by the public. JOHN ALSTAD MOVED TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO THE FEBRUARY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AND TABLE ACTION ON THE REQUEST. ALISON ZIMPFER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 2-0. 3. Regular Agenda A. Consideration of the Community Development Director's Report Angela Schumann provided the Community Development Director's Report as provided in the agenda packet. 4. Added Items None. 5. Adjournment JOHN ALSTAD MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 8:20 P.M. ANDREW TAPPER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 3-0. Recorder: Jacob Thunander Approved: February 2nd, 20 Attest: �----- Angela Sch a ommunity Development Director Planning Commission Minutes — January 5th, 2021 Page 10 110